The Trump administration is right to restrict more convicted criminals from claiming asylum in the United States.
As Fox News explains, the new rule introduced by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security this week “would only apply to crimes that had been committed in the U.S., meaning it would mostly target those migrants already in the U.S. or who had been removed from the U.S. and then attempted to re-enter.”
That distinction of crimes committed on U.S. soil versus foreign soil is important. It shows a morally proportionate recognition that some of those claiming asylum may have been convicted unfairly in other nations of trumped-up charges. In establishing the principle of a U.S. criminal conviction as a bar to asylum, the rule asks only that we should trust U.S. juries and judges to give us a fair indication as to an individual’s behavior and character. We do that every day.
Although the rule will spark glee from conservatives and fury on the part of the most ardent open-border activists, I suspect it will also find favor among many independents and Democrats, because it is far from excessive.
The rule would expedite the process to finalize rejected asylum claims but not capriciously. As important, it would bar asylum claims mainly from those convicted of state or federal felonies. Beyond that, it would bar claims only from those convicted of misdemeanors related to identification or welfare fraud, drug possession, border smuggling, domestic violence, driving drunk, two or more illegal border crossings, “or a crime involving criminal street gang activity.”
That relatively limited list seems fair enough to me.
After all, while we should welcome asylum seekers to America, we should only welcome the most deserving. And it’s clear from various accounts that not all asylum seekers are equal. As an extension, why on Earth should we ask law-abiding Americans or law-abiding migrants in our neighborhoods to risk their safety with someone who has proven, by criminal action on U.S. soil, that they might be a risk to our communities and country?
We should not.
This rule is proportionate and sensible. It should be enacted as soon as possible.
